The reason why there may be different approaches to consensus building is
simple: CWG and CCWG established their respected charters (including the
consensus building part – which is taken from the already imposed GNSO working
group rules) prior to their official take-off. Their members were already
provided with related rules when they came to the table.
ICG structure was decided independently from a multistakeholder approach,
the member organizations were set in advance. Then rules had to be developed
between ICANN- and Non-ICANN-related members.
The outcome
obviously varies but I would accept it and let the groups decide their
procedures.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 4:34 PM
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Interpretation of 'Consensus'
..
From:
Joseph Alhadeff [mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com]
In your last comment are you suggesting that we would then
question that communities decision on how they determine
consensus?
MM:
Yes and no. We could question its decision, but not its established procedure
for determining consensus. We would, in effect, be questioning their application
of their consensus rules to the given situation. Rules and procedures are always
subject to interpretation and discretion, and parties within a process can
dispute whether they were properly applied. If we see such challenges or
disputes, we will have to make judgments about them. Surely you are not saying
that there is consensus simply because whoever sent us a proposal response says
there is?
_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing
list
Internal-cg@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg